1. ' This order will dispose of the application filed by the applicant/ complainant under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. For cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.1 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore.
2. ' The facts giving rise to the present application are that on 2-7-2001 at 4-00 p.m. The applicant lodged the F.I.R. With Police Station Bakhshapur alleging therein that the deceased Jumo brother of the applicant was residing in the house of Ghulam Muhammad as they were fast friends. As the deceased had not visited the applicant therefore, he alongwith P.Ws. Mandost and Muhammad went to the .House of Ghulam Muhammad. They reached there at about 10-00 a.m. Where they met with the deceased. They saw accused Ghulam Muhammad, Sher Ali the respondent No.1 and Arbello present there. Out of them Ghulam Muhammad and Sher Ali were armed with guns and Arbello was empty-handed. All the three accused went inside the room whereas applicant, P.Ws.
3. And deceased were chitchatting outside the room. At about 10-30 all the three accused called deceased Jumo inside the room thereafter accused Ghulam Muhammad gave Hakal to deceased and declared him Karo with his wife Mst. Malookan. Saying so, the accused Ghulam Muhammad fired from his gun at Jumo which hit him over his right hand and chest. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 Sher Ali fired from his gun at the deceased which hit him on his leg. The applicant and P.Ws.
4. Gave Hakals to the accused persons and thereafter all the three accused persons went outside the room. They gave Hakal to Mst. Malookan who was working in the courtyard of the house by declaring Kari with Jumo therefore, she started running to save her life. In the meantime, accused Ghulam Muhammad directly fired from his gun at Mst. Malookan which hit her on her left leg. She went inside the mosque. All the three accused persons dragged her out of the mosque, then accused Ghulam Muhammad and respondent No.1, fired from their guns at Mst. Malookan which hit her on her abdomen, right foot and right hand. She fell down on the ground and thereafter the accused persons ran away. The applicant and P.Ws. Saw Jumo and Mst. Malookan lying dead at their respective places. The applicant went to his Nekmard, informed him about the incident and then lodged the report.
5. ' A bail application was moved before the trial Court where the respondent No.1 was granted bail under the impugned order. The applicant was dissatisfied with the said order therefore, he has field the present application for cancellation of bail.
6. ' I have heard Advocates for the applicant, respondent No.1, A.A.-G. For the State and perused the record.
7. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the name of the applicant is mentioned in the F.I.R., specific part has been assigned to him of causing fire-arm injuries to both the deceased; that the applicant and co-accused had motive to kill the deceased, therefore, the trial Court was not justified in granting bail to the respondent No.l.
8. ' On the other hand learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 has stated that the principles for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are quite different from each other; that the respondent No.1 is on bail since last two years; and that he is attending the Court regularly and has not misused the concession of bail. He has further stated that the applicant had not shown as to what was wrong in order of the trial Court in granting the bail, therefore, the said order cannot be set aside in this manner.
9. ' On the other hand learned A.A.-G. Has supported the arguments of Advocate for the applicant and has stated that the trial Court had conducted deeper appreciation of, evidence which was not permissible at bail stage; that the P.Ws. In their 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. Statements have supported the prosecution case and implicated the respondent No.1 with the commission of this crime therefore, prima facie case was made against the respondent No.1 as such the trial Court was not justified in granting the bail to him.
10. ' In reply to the arguments learned Advocated for the respondent No.1 has drawn my attention to the ground No.9 of the memo. Of application by stating that no substance has been produced to substantiate the allegation that the respondent No.1 has threatened the complainant party of dire consequences if the case was not withdrawn. He has further stated that the trial Court had granted the bail when the State counsel had raised no objection to the grant of bail.
11. I have given due consideration to the arguments and find that trial Court granted bail to the respondent No.1 on 13-3-2002 and the present application has been filed on 30-5-2002. The name of the respondent is mentioned in the F.I.R. Specific role of causing fire-arm injuries has been assigned to him in respect of both the deceased. The medical evidence supports the ocular version. The P.Ws. In their 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. Statements have supported the prosecution case and implicated the respondent No.1 with the commission of the crime as such there are reasonable grounds for believing that the respondent is involved in the case.
12. ' After considering material available on the record I am of the considered view that the trial Court was not justified in granting the bail to the respondent No.1 therefore, impugned order dated 13-3- 2002 is set aside. The process server has reported that respondent No.1 is in judicial lock-up Kashmore in connection with crime No.923 of 2001 of Police Station, Bakhshapur. The jail authorities are directed to produce the respondent No.1 before the trial Court on the date of hearing, after obtaining such date from the trial Court. The application is allowed.